Dr Jayan T vs Anupama M J on 31 October, 2025

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Dr Jayan T vs Anupama M J on 31 October, 2025

Appellant/husband has preferred these two appeals assailing the judgment and decrees of Family Court, Attingal, granting a decree of divorce sought by the wife and a decree directing him to return the value of gold ornaments and money to her.

2. The parties shall be referred to by their rank in the Original Petitions.

3. The wife filed OP.No.397/2018 for return of gold ornaments and cash, stating that her marriage with the 1 st respondent was solemnized on 23.08.2013 as per Hindu religious rites and ceremonies; that at the time of marriage, she was given 86 sovereigns of gold ornaments by her parents. After the marriage, 1 st respondent subjected her to mental and physical cruelty. 2nd respondent is the mother of R1. One week after the marriage, he pledged one gold chain weighing 4 sovereigns belonging to her for ₹25,000/- for availing a locker facility in his name Mat.A.Nos.51/2025 & 102/2025 4 2025:KER:82573 in SBI, Kallambalam branch. Thereafter, he kept 82 sovereigns of gold ornaments of the petitioner in the said locker operated by him. Subsequently, he, along with his mother, took the entire gold ornaments from the locker and misappropriated it for their own purposes. Respondents also caused her to withdraw an amount of ₹2,50,000/-, which was in fixed deposit in her name in Kerala Gramin Bank and misappropriated the said amount. Hence, the petitioner sought return of the value of 82 sovereigns of gold ornaments and cash of ₹2,50,000/- misappropriated by them. She also claimed an amount of ₹25,000/- from R1 towards the value of the laptop given to the 1 st respondent.

4. OP(HMA)No.348/2018 was filed by the wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, alleging that the respondent physically and mentally tortured her. She had laid complaints before the S.H.O, Kallambalam and Women's Commission in respect of the harassment of the respondent.

5. In O.P.No.397/2018, 1st respondent filed counter, refuting the allegations made in the petition and contending that the gold ornaments given to the petitioner at the time of marriage were taken by her own father; that her father sold it at 'Jagee Jewellery', Kallambalam, for the construction of a two-storied building. R1 had also made contributions for the construction of the said building; that he paid Mat.A.Nos.51/2025 & 102/2025 5 2025:KER:82573 ₹6,20,000/- to petitioner's father. Petitioner's father had sold 14 sovereigns of gold ornaments, which R1 had given to the petitioner.

6. 2nd respondent did not file any counter in O.P.No.397/2018.

7. In O.P.No.348/2018 respondent/husband filed counter, denying the allegations of cruelty levelled against him and also contending that the petition is ill-motivated; that she is acting under the advice of her parents and the petition for divorce is the outcome of a conspiracy hatched by her parents to marry her off to someone who is rich. Though the petitioner was conceived, she underwent a medical abortion without the knowledge and consent of the respondent. The petitioner has been residing separately without any reason since January 2017. Though the respondent had requested her to resume the cohabitation, she refused to do so. There are no valid grounds for granting divorce and therefore the relief of divorce sought by the wife is liable to be dismissed.

8. With the above pleadings, the parties went on trial.

9. Evidence consists of the oral testimonies of PW1 to PW3 and DW1 and the documents marked as Exts.A1 to A17 and Exts.B1 to B14. After trial, the Family Court allowed both petitions by granting a decree of divorce sought by the wife and also a decree for realisation of the value of gold ornaments and cash claimed by her.

Mat.A.Nos.51/2025 & 102/2025 6 2025:KER:82573

10. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.P.No.397/2018, the husband/appellant has preferred Mat.A No.102/2025 contending that the learned Family Court has not analysed the evidence in its correct perspective; that in the absence of any evidence to substantiate the claim of the petitioner that her gold ornaments were misappropriated by the respondents, the Family Court went wrong in granting a decree for realization of the amounts claimed in O.P.No.397/2018.

11. Challenging the judgment and decree in O.P. (HMA) No.348/2018, he preferred Mat.A No.51/2025 contending that the finding of the Family Court that the respondent/husband subjected the petitioner to cruelty is an incorrect finding as there is no evidence to prove any mental or physical cruelty; that the Family Court has no power to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and therefore, in the absence of any evidence regarding the alleged acts of cruelty, the Family Court went wrong in granting divorce in O.P(HMA) No.348/2018.

12. In Mat.Appeal No.102/2025, the point for consideration is whether the impugned judgment and decree in O.P.No.397/2018 needs any interference by this Court.

13. Admittedly parties are Hindus and their marriage was solemnized on 23.08.2013. According to the petitioner, who was Mat.A.Nos.51/2025 & 102/2025 7 2025:KER:82573 examined as PW1, that at the time of her marriage, her parents gave her 86 sovereigns of gold ornaments; that after the marriage, her entire gold ornaments were kept in a locker, which was opened in the name of the 1st respondent/husband and the locker was being maintained by him. Subsequently, the respondents 1 and 2, namely the husband and his mother, misappropriated the entire gold ornaments kept in the said locker and utilized the said amounts for their own purposes and therefore, she is entitled to get back the value of 82 sovereigns of the gold ornaments, which are scheduled in the petition. She also testified that one week after the marriage, 1 st respondent/husband pledged one gold chain weighing 4 sovereigns belonging to her in SBI, Kallambalam branch for an amount of ₹25,000/-, and it was by depositing the said amount, he availed a locker facility in the said Bank and thereafter kept her gold ornaments in the said locker. According to PW1, the locker was in the name of the 1st respondent/husband and it was being operated by him. Subsequently, the respondents 1 and 2 misappropriated her entire gold ornaments and utilized its proceeds for their own purposes.

14. To substantiate her case that her parents had given 86 sovereigns of gold ornaments to her, petitioner has produced Ext.A2 series bills and Ext.A3 series wedding photos. Respondents in the O.P have no case that petitioner had no gold ornaments at the time of Mat.A.Nos.51/2025 & 102/2025 8 2025:KER:82573 marriage. Respondents also have no dispute about the quantity of the gold ornaments given to her by her parents at the time of marriage. In the counter statement filed by R1, he has not denied the case of the petitioner that she was given 86 sovereigns of gold ornaments by her parents. In the said circumstances, we find no reason to disbelieve the version of PW1 that at the time of marriage, she was given 86 sovereigns of gold ornaments by her parents and she brought the said 86 sovereigns of gold to the matrimonial home.

15. PW1 has further testified that respondents 1 and 2 forced her to keep her gold ornaments in the locker opened in the name of 1 st respondent and it was under their pressure and as insisted by them she handed over her gold ornaments to the 1st respondent for its safekeeping in the locker.

16. 1st respondent would admit the case of the petitioner that after the marriage, he availed a locker facility in his name at State Bank Of India, Kallamabalam branch. He would also admit that, he pledged a gold chain weighing 4 sovereigns belonging to PW1 for an amount of ₹25,000/- and deposited the said amount as a security deposit before the Bank for availing the locker facility. During cross-examination 1st respondent has categorically admitted that the gold ornaments of the petitioner were kept by him in the said locker. Thus, the version of the petitioner that her entire gold ornaments were kept in a bank locker Mat.A.Nos.51/2025 & 102/2025 9 2025:KER:82573 maintained by R1 in his name stands proved.

17. The next aspect for consideration is whether the case of the petitioner that respondents 1 and 2 misappropriated her gold ornaments stands proved or not.

18. The specific version of the petitioner who was examined as PW1 is that her 82 sovereigns of gold ornaments were taken by the respondents 1 and 2 and they misappropriated it for their own purpose. As against the version of PW1, the case of the 1st respondent is that the gold ornaments were sold by her own father. According to the 1 st respondent, who was examined as DW1, petitioner's father sold her gold ornaments in a jewellery shop named 'Jagee Jewellery' on 20.10.2015, 26.11.2015, 21.12.2015 and 13.02.2016 and he is in possession of documents to prove it. Though 1st respondent would contend that he is in possession of receipts for the sale of the gold in the said jewellery by petitioner's father, he failed to produce any such documents to substantiate the said contention.

19. In Reshmi Radhakrishnan v. Vinod K.G (2025 (3) KHC 405) this Court observed as follows:

"The gold given to a bride at the time of marriage is often kept by the husband or his family under the guise of safekeeping of family customs. The woman rarely gets a written record or receipt for such transfers and the woman's access to her own ornaments can be restricted. When disputes arise, especially in cases of domestic violence, dowry harassment or divorce, the woman may claim that her gold ornaments have been misused or Mat.A.Nos.51/2025 & 102/2025 10 2025:KER:82573 never returned. However, since she seldom receives the list or acknowledgment of the items given to her, proving ownership becomes difficult. Courts have to understand this practical difficulty and cannot insist on rigid legal proof as in criminal cases. The inability to produce documentary evidence should not be a barrier to justice, especially in cases where the social and familial norms make such evidence hard to obtain. The Courts rely on the preponderance of probability to ensure that legal system remains sensitive, fair and just. It upholds the principle that justice is not about rigid formalities but about recognising truth in its real context."

20. In Prasad v. Greeshma (2025 (4) KHC 595) this Court observed as follows:

"15. In most Indian households the entrustment of gold ornaments by a bride to her husband or in-laws occurs in a setting of familial trust within the four walls of the matrimonial home. A newly wedded woman would not be in a position to demand receipts or independent witnesses while handing over the jewellery to the husband or in-laws. Due to the domestic and informal nature of such transactions, she would not be in a position to produce documents or independent witnesses to prove entrustment. The woman being a family member, cannot be expected to anticipate a future legal dispute and create documentary evidence in a household where she is expected to conform, trust and remain silent, especially in the early stage of her marriage.

16. Therefore, if any dispute arises at a later stage, the woman is placed in a practically difficult position of proving the entrustment of her own valuables. In such circumstances, strict proof beyond a reasonable doubt as is required in criminal law would lead to injustice, and therefore the Court has to adopt a pragmatic approach and decide the issue of entrustment on the principle of preponderance of probabilities."

21. As stated earlier, the 1st respondent has categorically admitted that the gold ornaments of the petitioner were kept in the locker maintained by him in his name at SBI Kallambalam branch. Mat.A.Nos.51/2025 & 102/2025 11 2025:KER:82573 Though the 1st respondent would contend that all the gold ornaments were sold by petitioner's father and the sale proceeds were used for the construction of a residential building by petitioner's father, there is absolutely no evidence in support of the said contention. R2 has not even cared to file any counter and she did not dispute the claim of the petitioner. The evidence on record, coupled with the admission made by the 1st respondent, would undoubtedly establish the fact that the 82 sovereigns of gold ornaments of the petitioner entrusted to the respondents 1 and 2 were kept by them in a bank locker opened in the name of R1 and maintained by him. Hence, it is the duty of the respondents to explain what happened to those gold ornaments entrusted to them. Respondents failed to discharge the said burden cast upon them. Therefore, R1 and R2 are liable to return 82 sovereigns of gold ornaments or make good the value of the same as rightly found by the learned Family Court.

22. The next aspect for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to get back an amount of ₹2,50,000/- claimed by her from the respondents. The case of the petitioner is that an amount of ₹2,50,000/- was in Fixed Deposit in her name in a bank; that on 27.08.2014, as insisted by the respondents, the said fixed amount was withdrawn from the bank and paid to respondents. To substantiate the said case, she has produced Ext.A4. Ext.A4 would show that an Mat.A.Nos.51/2025 & 102/2025 12 2025:KER:82573 amount of ₹2,60,000/- was debited from her account on 27.08.2014. The 1st respondent in his counterstatement has not specifically denied the case pleaded by the petitioner that her fixed deposit amount of ₹2,50,000/- was misappropriated by the respondents. As stated earlier, R2 did not file any counter denying the case of the petitioner.

23. Order VIII Rule 5 CPC provides that every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied in the written statement, shall be taken to be admitted by the defendant. What this Rule says is, that any allegation of fact must either be denied specifically or by a necessary implication or there should be at least a statement that the fact is not admitted. If the plea is not taken in that manner, then the allegation shall be taken to be admitted. (Lohia Properties (P) Ltd., Tinsukia, Dibrugarh, Assam v. Atmaram Kumar [(1993) 4 SCC 6].

24. From the evidence adduced by the petitioner, it stands established that a Fixed Deposit of ₹2,50,000/-, which stood in the name of the petitioner, was withdrawn on 27.8.2014 and the amount was utilized by the respondents for their own purposes. Therefore, R1 and R2 are liable to return the said amount to the petitioner as rightly held by the Family Court.

25. Petitioner has also claimed an amount of ₹25,000/- towards the value of a laptop, which was given by her to the 1 st respondent. Though the 1st respondent would contend that the laptop was Mat.A.Nos.51/2025 & 102/2025 13 2025:KER:82573 purchased for her own purposes, it is to be borne in mind that in the counter statement filed by him, he has not specifically denied the case of the petitioner that a laptop worth ₹25,000/- was given to him. While examined as RW1, he would admit that after the marriage a laptop was purchased. Thus, the petitioner has satisfactorily proved her claims in respect of the laptop. We find no reason to interfere with the judgment and decree of the Family Court in O.P.No.397/2018. Mat.Appeal No.51/2025

26. In Mat.Appeal.No.51/2025, the point for consideration is whether the decree of dissolution of marriage granted by the Family Court under Section 13(1)(ia)of the Hindu Marriage Act warrants any interference by this Court.

27. According to the petitioner, her husband namely the respondent in O.P(HMA) No.348/2018 subjected her to cruelty both physically and mentally; that the respondent and his mother ill-treated and harassed demanding her to part with her gold ornaments and the Fixed Deposit amount of ₹2,50,000/- which stood in her name; that to meet their unlawful demands, they locked her in a room and accordingly she had to yield to their demands and had to entrust her 82 sovereigns of gold ornaments to them and she was forced to withdraw the Fixed Deposit of ₹2,50,000/- in her name and had to entrust the said amount to the respondent and mother. Her further version is that Mat.A.Nos.51/2025 & 102/2025 14 2025:KER:82573 respondent/husband used to harass her, demanding more gold and cash and due to his continued harassment, she had to leave the matrimonial home on 10.01.2017, and thereafter she is residing with her parents. According to her, on 02.09.2013 at 7.45 PM, respondent manhandled her; that respondent beat her, fisted her and hit her head against the wall; that she underwent treatment at Kallambalam Welcare Hospital and also KTCT Hospital, Chathampara. But the respondent told the doctor that her head accidently hit on the wall. Her specific version is that on 11.11.2013, the 2nd respondent locked her in a room with a demand to part with her gold ornaments.

28. The word "cruelty" has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act. The cruelty may be either mental or physical or both.

29. In Raj Talreja v. Kavita Talreja [AIR 2017 SC 2138] the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that cruelty can never be defined with exactitude.

30. In S.Hanumantha Rao v. S.Ramani [AIR 1999 SC 1318] the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the meaning of mental cruelty in juxtaposition with the legal mandate of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and observed as follows:

"Mental cruelty broadly means, when either party causes mental pain, agony or suffering of such a magnitude that it severs the bond between the wife and husband and as a result of which it becomes impossible for the party who has suffered to live with the other party. In other words, the party who has committed wrong is not expected Mat.A.Nos.51/2025 & 102/2025 15 2025:KER:82573 to live with the other party."

31. Respondent who appeared in person laboured much to impress upon this Court that all the allegations of cruelty projected by the petitioner are trivial in nature and therefore she is not entitled to get a decree of divorce.

32. It has come out in evidence that the petitioner lodged a complaint against the respondent alleging commission of offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and after investigation, the police laid final report against the respondent. The said fact fortifies the case of the petitioner that she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by the respondent. The defence canvassed by the respondent that petitioner is a puppet in the hands of her parents is a flimsy argument.

33. It has come out in evidence that respondent and his mother misappropriated the gold ornaments of the petitioner and thereby economically abused her and deprived her from enjoying her property, which also amounts to cruelty.

34. Petitioner has produced Ext.A6, namely the copies of screenshots of certain messages sent by the respondent from the mobile phone number 7042540841. During cross-examination, respondent has admitted that the said mobile number is that of his. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of PW1 that the Mat.A.Nos.51/2025 & 102/2025 16 2025:KER:82573 said messages were sent by the respondent. If we go through Ext.A6 messages, one can see the nature, character, conduct and attitude of the respondent and how he ill-treated his wife. One of the messages reads as follows:

"Pay urgently five lakhs rupees into my account as compensation for opposing intercourse. It is for entertainment in Delhi."

Yet another message reads as under;

Urgently register all your landed properties in Ottoor and Karavaram villages in my name"

35. In Ext.A7 series postcards addressed to petitioner, he has stated that if she is not willing to reside with him, he wants divorce. In Ext.A7 dated 10.12.2018, he has demanded an amount of ₹3 Crores from the petitioner as alimony.

36. Ext.A8 (same as B4) notice, he has demanded an amount of Rs.5 Crores as alimony and monthly maintenance from the wife and has also intimidated her that he would initiate criminal proceedings against her parents and relatives. Ext.A11 dated 10.01.2017 would show that during the subsistence of marriage with the petitioner and even prior to the filing of OP(HMA) No.348/2018 by the wife, he had caused publication of a matrimonial advertisement inviting suitable alliance for him from prospective brides. During cross-examination respondent has admitted that he effected such an advertisement. These messages sent by him to his wife show the nature of cruelty and mental distress suffered by the wife. The tone and content of these messages provide Mat.A.Nos.51/2025 & 102/2025 17 2025:KER:82573 insight into his conduct, behaviour and attitude towards his spouse.

37. In the case at hand, petitioner/wife has satisfactorily and substantially proved that respondent/husband has treated her with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it would be harmful or injurious for her to live with the respondent. Hence, petitioner/wife is entitled to get a decree of divorce as sought for.

38. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree of divorce granted by the Family Court, Attingal.

In the result, Mat.Appeal No.51/2025 stands dismissed with cost. Mat.Appeal No.102/2025 stands dismissed with cost.

Sd/-

                                  DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN,            JUDGE



                                          Sd/-
                                   M.B. SNEHALATHA, JUDGE

Mms
 Mat.A.Nos.51/2025 & 102/2025               18             2025:KER:82573

                        APPENDIX OF MAT.APPEAL 51/2025

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure1                      CERTIFIED   COPY   OF  THE   JUDGMENT   IN
                               OP(HMA)NO      348/2018,FAMILY      COURT,
                               ATTINGAL



RESPONDENTS
ANNEXURES:                     NIL
 Mat.A.Nos.51/2025 & 102/2025              19             2025:KER:82573

                       APPENDIX OF MAT.APPEAL 102/2025

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure1                      CERTIFIED COPY OF COMMON JUDGMENT DATED
                               19-12-2024   PASSED   BY   FAMILY COURT,
                               ATTINGAL IN OP NO 397/2018


RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court